Labour should thank Christopher Chope – he has done a fine job of further disgracing the Tory party

Christopher Chope, the Conservative MP and parliamentary proceduralist, forced the House of Commons to debate a subject the opposition very much wanted to discuss, namely why Tories are up to no good. “I think it’s important for this house of democracy to debate this openly,” he said.

Alicia Kearns, notionally in the same party as Chope, berated him. We have discussed this subject for four and half hours already, she told him. “How much longer does he want? Five hours, 10, 15?” It is not often that you see Tory MPs turning on each other in the Commons like this.

Jess Phillips, for Labour, was torn between admiration for Chope’s willingness to engage in vigorous democratic debate and scorn for the way he suggested to Kearns that she had failed to “apply her mind” to the principle concerned.

But honestly, Agent Chope could not have done a better job for Labour HQ if he tried. The government naturally wanted its U-turn over Owen Paterson to be completed as discreetly as possible, by “nodding through” a motion last night accepting the decision of the standards committee that the Tory former MP was guilty of paid lobbying. Chope objected, forcing today’s hour-long debate, during which he defended not just his decision to stage the debate, but also his friend Paterson, complaining, again, that he had been unfairly treated.

The debate went about as badly for the absent prime minister as it possibly could. Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, forced to re-announce a government climbdown in broad daylight, did it as briefly as he could, explaining that “the tragedy that afflicted Mr Paterson” – he didn’t refer directly to his wife’s suicide – “coloured and clouded our judgement”.

Theresa May, the former prime minister, said the obvious but emphasising by her presence the contrast with her successor. “I believe the conclusion was clear and fair – Owen Paterson broke the rules on paid advocacy,” she said. And the attempt by MPs “aided and abetted by the government” – that is, Boris Johnson – “to clear his name was misplaced, ill-judged and just plain wrong”.

Karl Turner, the Labour MP, drove the point home for those who had missed it: “This would never – never – have happened under the previous prime minister.” May’s mask concealed any expression that might have flickered across her face.

There was no need for opposition spokespeople to make the case against the current prime minister today. Although Pete Wishart for the SNP did a reasonable line in theatrical amazement that Rees-Mogg should have “defied the laws of political science” by still being in his job after two whole weeks of negative headlines. And there was something in his comment: “They would have got away with it if it hadn’t been for their pesky constituents.” It was only because the reaction of public opinion was so sharp that Johnson had decided an urgent retreat was needed.

The U-turn might have meant the damage wasn’t greater, but the wreckage on display on the Tory benches in the Commons today was terrible enough.

No wonder the prime minister decided now was the moment to order a further retreat. Just before Keir Starmer announced his proposals for Labour’s own debate tomorrow, Johnson announced that he would accept half of the opposition’s plan.

Labour has tabled a motion to ban MPs from paid directorships and consultancies; the government has accepted the second part, prompting the Labour leader to announce “victory” but with further battles ahead.

The prime minister appears to be hoping that a partial concession will rally his MPs – although some of the older and richer ones won’t be pleased about losing some of their lucrative second jobs. Because Starmer will be leading a debate in opposition time in parliament, Johnson is hoping the Tories will remember the instinct of unity.

The prime minister’s tactics confirm that Labour has him on the run. Starmer had showed a bit of procedural skill, getting round the problem that opposition motions usually aren’t binding – by proposing to amend Commons rules, rather than legislation, the change would be binding on MPs. By conceding consultancies, the government is obviously hoping to defend paid directorships.

The prime minister does not want to give an inch, but as Wishart noted, he has been forced to do so by public opinion, as expressed by Tory MPs’ constituents who have made their feelings clear. Hence the U-turn on Paterson and the tactical retreat on consultancies. But there are, as Starmer said, many other fronts on which the rules on standards in public life need to be tightened up. I suspect Johnson will fight with all his slipperiness to avoid giving the independent adviser on ministerial standards statutory powers, for example. That change, called for by the five living former cabinet secretaries in their letter to The Times, would be a significant curtailment of prime ministerial power.

That is where the battle ahead lies. Labour needs more agents working behind enemy lines if it is going to win.